Hi Torsten,
You have to distinguish between the Cygwin tools, that many find useful, and the Cygwin compile-time environment. I think Ralph is saying is to drop support for the Cygwin gcc compile environment, and require use of the Microsoft compiler. Thus the executables don't depend on the Cygwin run-time environment, which is a moving target.
As an example of the mixture you can still end up with, I know for a long time we depended on a Cygwin version of gmake, but the compiler was still the Windows compiler.
Cheers,
Nick Rees
Principal Software Engineer Phone: +44 (0)1235-778430
Diamond Light Source Fax: +44 (0)1235-446713
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Torsten Bögershausen
Sent: 30 April 2015 09:33
To: Ralph Lange; EPICS Core-Talk
Subject: Re: Cygnus support
Hej,
From my experience cygwin has some advantages over native Windows,
like scripts, Perl, POSIX path names, long path names, xemacs..
Are there any chances to give us an overview, which problems, troubles, .. ?
That could ease the motivation for a decision, whichever that would be.
/Torsten
On 30/04/15 10:02, Ralph Lange wrote:
Hm .... here's a proposal:
As supporting the Cygnus/Windows target architecture causes never-ending
trouble and uses significantly more than average resources, I would propose
attempting to drop cygwin support from EPICS Base.
We have well-working support for Linux and native Windows, and IMHO cygwin was
after all a bridge solution until virtualization arrived on the Windows
platform. It seems not just being a moving target, but the wrong target in the
end.
Should we send out a message on tech-talk, asking if there are actually any
EPICS on Cygwin users left?
Cheers,
~Ralph